war on women

I think it’s about time someone from the Republican campaign just took the time to lay it all out there. Just tell the people what is up with what Republicans believe. I’m not Karl Rove or anything, but I think it ought to come from Mitt Romney himself and P.D.Q. Here’s what I would say if I were him.

Hello, my name is Mitt, and I’m a rich man. I’m standing before you and I admit it. Yes, my name is Mitt and I AM a rich man. I’ll own it.

There is certainly a lot of discussion out there about being rich or poor. That people who are rich will always be rich and that poor people will always be poor. Rich people do nothing for anybody but themselves and poor people can do nothing for themselves. Is that how you see it? Funny, I always thought America was about poor people who thought they could be rich if they really wanted to be and then did. America is where we break through those glass ceilings and say nothing is always the way it is.

Let me tell you about two sons I know. They both worked for Dell Computers way back before Dell was DELL. One man’s father was a middle to upper income earner, a CFO, while the other’s father came from Mexico as a migrant worker picking watermelons. One day these sons tell their fathers to invest in Dell because they see customized computers as the future. So the dads do this, each father taking what they think they can spend on the investment. Now you might imagine the migrant worker invested less than the wealthier CFO, but we’ll never know for sure. He was unable to speak much English and had no idea what a Dell computer was until his son started working there. Some years later, the CFO father grew “un-enchanted” with the computer company and decided to cash out of his slow if not motionless investment. The migrant worker dad on the other hand, out of love and respect for his son, faithfully kept what little money he had in Dell despite his poor means. He just worked harder to make ends meet. A couple years later, Dell Computers turned the whole technology market on its head. Stock price for this company skyrocketed and then split… then split again. The migrant watermelon picker was now a multi-millionaire and the CFO dad was just as moderately wealthy as he always was. In America, both had equal opportunity to be extremely wealthy despite their backgrounds. There was no insider trading- just faith in a good business.

In America, poor people can become rich people and rich people can become poor people. There is no guarantee; there is only the right of pursuit. Now if you take the right of pursuit away, by telling people there is no chance so why pursuit…all you do is guarantee that most people will try less to succeed and try less to pursuit great things. I pursued great things, became rich and now that allows me to help you, uninhibited by my background. I heard a citizen say the other day, to a reporter, “Well Mitt is rich. Why would he want to bother with such a hard job as the President?” And the answer to that is because I can. And I can do this without having to be tempted by corruption. No one could ever pay me enough to do harm to my country. There isn’t one thing I need or want in my life more than the opportunity to save this country from ruin.

There are people in charge right now that clearly have no idea what they are doing. The polls show we agree we are not heading in the right direction. I understand the Obama Administration’s pride and why they are so frustrated by this failure. They had a revolutionary plan. Unfortunately, it’s not a working plan. It never was. It has failed because they don’t want to admit when they are wrong and they don’t want help. Have you ever seen this show called Kitchen Nightmare’s with a chef by the name of Gordon Ramsey? This guy comes in and tells the restaurant owners either that their kitchen is filthy, they are spending too much money, or too little money on good produce, their behavior towards their employees and customers need to change, the food sucks or all of the above. In each case the restaurant is going bankrupt, the owners are in debt up to their ears, they’re about to lose their home because that’s tied to the restaurant too, but still… because they had such great plans for the restaurant and it was their “dream” they don’t want to listen. They get angry. They get violent. They literally hate this guy Ramsey because they think he’s all high and mighty. They think he couldn’t possibly understand where they are coming from, the whole bit. He comes in, gives them all these alternative options. He makes changes to the menu and the decor. Overnight he makes real physical changes and helps change their attitudes whether they will admit it will work or not and then faithfully waits to see what happens. Suddenly everyone likes the food and surprise, the business grows. The families end up naming their children after Gordon and all live happily ever after. Now Gordon Ramsey isn’t an American citizen, so he can’t be nominated for President, so don’t even try it! Now here’s the thing. He goes back six months later to check on them and those owners who decided to be stubborn and go back to their old way and not listen to the expert went under. Those who refused to try and trust someone they thought was “out of touch” with them, lost out big time. Never to be recovered.

I don’t want that to be America. I am rich because I’m good at business and we need to change the way we do business in America. Forgive me for saying this but the majority of America’s problems right now are about money. We need the poor and the rich working together in America like we used to. Now those who have the money are literally unable to use it. People cannot get the loans they need. Workers cannot get paid. The way America used to do business is no longer possible because of the way the current administration chooses to run it. I’ll say it again. They don’t know what they are doing. People don’t want to do business with us anymore, in other words, people are going to stop coming to our restaurant if we don’t get it functioning as a modern, fresh and comfortable place to be.

They are telling you that by doing things right, what the Republicans think is right, that it will put hard working minorities “back in chains.” There is no skin color of the Republican Party. Anyone who says there is, is backwards. They want you to look backwards too. Doing it over and over and over again is intolerable. The hatemongering has got to stop! If you took us all and stuck us in a blender we’d be a very nice shade of brown. Our expertise, our experience, our love for our country and the great things about it has no class status. “Wise men profit more by fools, than fools by wise men; for wise men avoid the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the good examples of wise men.” – CATO THE ELDER, c. 200 B.C. If you don’t want to work with rich people you’re missing out. If you don’t want to work with poor people, you’re missing out. Great educations come from working with both. That is why America has for centuries been so ahead of the curve. Our tolerance of each other, our abilities to make our differences work for us, make us smarter.

As people have actually tried to disrupt the harmony and our strides with civil rights, making us stop to question whether we should continue to keep working together, our country has become stagnate and numb. But here’s the trick. It’s only on the surface. The real truth about this whole campaign thing is that under all this media coverage of class warfare and anger, we are real people. We are a real country. We don’t hate each other. We’re angry because we feel we can’t make a difference in our financial status or communities. Opportunity has literally been snatched from our grasp. Because of fear, doors- as in opportunity, as well as the real doors to our homes and businesses… like our favorite restaurants are literally closing every day.

Speaking of closing doors. There is something I would really like to stop and that’s the bold face lies being told by those working for the Democratic Party to confuse you about the Republican policy. Republicans don’t hate gay people and we don’t have an ongoing war against women. We will not make it our focus to repeal gay marriage. Nor will we make it our focus to repeal Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, in case you were curious, none of our policies make the environment more polluted or the globe warmer either.

If that’s what you are afraid of, then you aren’t living in the real world. That’s where the Republicans and I live. I’m going to be real honest with you right now. So listen up. Our focus is saving the economy right now. Without an economy, we can’t do jack. That’s just the way it is. All the smart cars and healthcare in the world won’t save us if our economy collapses. This is what Republicans stand for right now. We will fix this problem carefully and methodically. To do this, despite popular belief, Republicans will not throw Granny off a cliff. I don’t even know how those actors got that wheelchair with granny up there. No, seriously. In fact, we only plan to cut spending on Medicaid by 3% compared to what Obama wants to spend. That’s hardly reducing grandma to eating cat food. In fact, once we get rid of Obamacare we can put the 716 billion Obama’s plan steals from seniors back in the Medicare pot. Another fact is that if we continue with Obama’s healthcare plan, Medicare for seniors will be completely insolvent in 12 years.

The model we are looking at for offering everyone a healthcare choice is doing better in use than we ever anticipated. It has cost 43% less than what we thought it would cost to implement and young people get to choose whether they want Medicare run by the government or get the equivalent of that cost to use towards a private insurance of their choice. This will drive the cost down with the good old’ American way. Competition. Competition means choice for everyone. Competition, in case you were wondering, isn’t the same as fighting each other.

If we can hold onto our thoughtless blurts of disgust and spontaneous angry reactions to the little stuff for just a while, we find we aren’t that upset after all. When we don’t waste the time responding to every word each other say with anger, we listen to the other guy a little more and understand where they are coming from a little bit better. Americans don’t ask each other whether we are rich or poor when we are fighting for our country. It’s not our style. We may not agree, but a compromise can surely be explored a lot easier on that safer frontier.

We built this country together. It seems like we haven’t built anything in a long time. That’s what it feels like. I know we can build a great future together. Would you rather let the government say they’ll come up with something to help you out and you don’t need to worry about what it is or what it costs? Or would you rather be involved by learning from and working with your countrymen to build something you believe in? I know, in fact I will guarantee you, as a successful business man who honestly cares about each and every one of you, if we all work harder, if we all work harder on working together we’ll all be a lot richer.

Stand with me. Support me and the other Republicans in your state. Don’t let them close more doors on opportunity. Let’s make more doors of opportunity! Thank you and God Bless America.

What I’m about to write may be a little presumptuous. My best friend told me when we were kids that someday my mouth would get me in trouble. Honestly, I don’t really think this is it.

It kind of reminds me of this horrible semester long research paper I had to write in college, a requirement to graduate called the Capstone Paper. You had to pick a social issue you think something should be done about and propose a solution. The thing was, you couldn’t write about any of the red letter subjects like abortion or… abortion. I figure they didn’t want us to waste our time writing about something they knew we just weren’t equipped to talk about much less find answers for at our level of experience. So, I finally got them to let me write about homelessness. Ha! Hey, I like complicated. I thought I had some pretty good points but the guy grading me didn’t exactly see it my way. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why he didn’t like anything I had to say. I had basically written on the same subject in another course and received rave reviews. This guy wanted to give me an “F” like something awful. Needless to say, I lost my Suma Cum Laude status. Finally, I remembered a moment at the beginning of the course when the professor was trying to get to know everyone. Seeing I was a big fan of automobiles he asked me my opinion on buying a new Corvette and I gave him my honest opinion. I told him Corvettes suck and he should buy a Porsche. Well, at the time it was pretty much true. I don’t think he ever smiled at me again after that statement. I learned the hard way that sometimes you just have to keep your mouth shut no matter what you think you know or what you think you’ll help by being totally and completely honest. (Hopefully I’m not talking about me at this juncture.) But anyhow, speaking of losing status and people who get kicked to the curb…

Poor Sandra Fluke, just the latest victim of the Democratic National Committee machine. If there was ever a dangerously crazy fraternity on campus it would be the far-left Democrats. Isn’t it just like them to sacrifice a child for their own quest for power? Well, maybe not a child, I meant virgin. No, I meant…umm…hmmm…young woman who looks like a virgin, maybe? The point is this young woman may have totally screwed her future by following these people into what is clearly just a cheap attempt to get the vote of the young and the restless. Wow. Was that worth it? Talk about wham bam thank you ma’am. Her image of a serious individual for representing, women’s health law has probably been seriously damaged. She clearly doesn’t know crap about women’s actual needs. I’m not even sure she knows the definition of need. Georgetown Law? Really?

Kind of like that chick who came on Mr. Sean Hannity’s show in defense of the latest bus victim, Fluke. Right off the bat Tamara Holder rebuts one of Sean’s opening comments with “Well, that’s because I’m a smart liberal, Sean.” Then throughout the interview she went on to say with little finesse whatsoever, that she readily equates entitlement with our constitutional rights. Despite his disappointment, Sean was very polite I have to say. When you know good and well he wished he could throw that football right at her head.

Another guest on Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s Factor proceeded to say how all of the conservative Republicans were spouting language that indicated a “war on women”. She emphasized “all of them” several times. But when Mr. O’Reilly asked her to give just one example, she sat there stunned, quiet. Then he gave her an easier question. “Give me one example of Romney saying something against women.” Again, cricket sounds. She finally was able to utter something to the effect that she liked Romney …but that he never has spoken out against the Republicans [and their apparent war on women]. Don’t they know they are going to be asked to back up their statements? Don’t they know they look absolutely ridiculous when they sit there with their mouths wide open aggrandized by their flanking Farrah Fosset hair? If there is a war on women, these women are traitors to our cause. They all by themselves make us look like the weaker sex.

No disrespect to Rosie and Ms. Houston, but what on earth were you girls smoking before you had your little televised tea party? Why would you go out there and say that there is a war on women “in this day and age”? You mean in the day and age where women are freely allowed to live whatever lifestyle as a woman they choose? Seriously, you’re going to take up arms and say there is a war on women because you think contraception is too expensive? Did I miss something?

What about a war on women because fertility drugs are too expensive? Fertility treatments or medications to help women get pregnant (whether they need them or not) aren’t covered at all by insurance. This is because fertility is viewed as a luxury item, not any kind of medical necessity. Well, I’m here to say that as a woman, I think having babies means just as much to me as not having them. Besides, these “fertility” drugs are a medical necessity in many cases, just as the contraceptives are being argued to be. Wouldn’t you think that should be included on this discussion of women’s health being neglected and further for that matter, shouldn’t we really discuss who is at the bottom of not providing shall we say a more well-rounded form of women’s healthcare?

If the Republican Party advisors (huh-hum, Karl) had any sense whatsoever, they would use this blatant misuse of a college kid to their advantage. This is a dodge ball you can catch! Come on, if some people are really going to use women’s health as a campaign strategy how about doing something that actually concerns women’s health. And if you really want to earn more than just the votes of women and earn the hearts of women, you should use the power of the Republican Party to actually do something to change the way we truly look at women’s health so that it benefits us when it is appropriate for us. This is one way they can do that.

Republicans should turn the issue of women’s health right back on these entitlement policy pushing people by pointing out that the availability of contraception and abortion to women, especially young ones is not where the government and insurance companies are lacking service. There is a gap in women’s healthcare and there does seem to be some pretty anti-woman sentiment going on behind it, but it’s not coming from conservative Republicans. It comes from ultra-feminist who want an absolute equivocation between the sexes no matter what the cost. Like I said, I’m not a genius but, I’m guessing they don’t belong to the conservative Republican Party.

When I started hearing all this Pseudos about women’s health needs not being met because they were not going to be provided contraception drugs through their church-based employer or school, I thought what a ridiculous waste of media attention. Look, I’m not smart enough to get into Georgetown Law but I know that is like the last thing women are really in a pickle about when it comes to their health, specifically. It’s especially so when you can go and get those things at alternative locations for little to no cost, insurance or no. Do they want it delivered to their dorm or something …with a cookie no less?

If those who are trying to promote change in America’s healthcare in general were so interested in the availability of excellent women’s healthcare, why do they no longer equate good health with fertility? For thousands of years the epitome of a healthy woman was a fertile woman. Somehow that’s all changed. Specifically in business, specifically in insurance companies and I doubt very sincerely that it has anything to do with cost/profit margin.

Here’s an example. If you have a complicated pregnancy, that’s one thing, but in general, if you need some help having a baby with fertility drugs, or if you want to have any extra monitoring of a healthy baby during pregnancy, it is absolutely not covered by any health insurance of any brand. It seems the policy is this way because their stand is that if you want children, that is a luxury item and therefore you should have to pay for them. What they fail to realize is by this policy, they are neglecting many young women that need drugs that are considered “fertility drugs” even though they are to treat diseases like endometriosis. The goal is to not have to get pregnant actually, even though the only said “cure” for endometriosis is pregnancy. They’re just trying to keep the cancerous-like endometrial tissue at bay until they are someday ready to have surgery or get pregnant.

There is hardly anyone who doesn’t know someone who is suffering or has suffered from endometriosis. Scientists don’t know if this has always been prevalent among women, but they all concur this is a very widespread and an increasingly more serious disease among women. Not to put too fine a point on this but, this is a real, major health issue among women, especially college age women, and I bet something they would be very interested in their political representatives getting involved in.

Many women like me at that age just want to finish college, but between the pain, the surgeries and lack of coverage it is almost impossible. However, if women do not do something to remove the endometriosis at an earlier stage, it in many cases can cause serious problems and at the very least lead to very low chances of pregnancy later on in life.

At any rate, many college age women with this very common disease are faced with few choices. They can pay full price for these extremely expensive drugs in lieu of tuition, food and rent. Or they could drop out of school and go ahead and start a family if they can find a dude ready and willing (and hopefully with a job). Or they can do nothing and let the disease invade. So why is this issue for insurance companies? What’s the big deal? Why won’t they just write in a little sub clause thing-a-majiggy (that’s the word I’ll use to get into Georgetown Law) so that these truly in need women can be covered for these “fertility drugs” when they medically need them?

My theory is that no matter how you make the case, insurance companies will not cover such drugs because in order to do so, they would have to change their definition of fertility in reference to a woman’s health. Suspiciously, they are obviously not interested in changing this policy for the benefit of women or for any other reason. I just wonder. Do you think it is coincidental that insurance companies’ policies and the policies and views of the far left of the liberal Democratic Party are so much inline? They both take non-religious stands on medical issues. They both seem to treat men and women equally as far as what they are entitled to (which brings up a point I will bring up later). And most recently they also both seem to take the stand that contraception for all is a more pertinent issue to women’s health than the actual medical needs and care of women, especially women wanting to have children someday.

I believe this relates directly to the ultra-feminists agenda and directly in opposition to women’s civil rights. I know that is a big statement, but scientifically it is a fact that this current policy of having an all or nothing approach to women’s health in order to protect a hidden agenda of equality or for any reason is harmful to women. I believe they are harming more than they realize.

This in a way seems to be stunting the growth of families who have mothers who attend college. If young women can’t go to college or have to drop out of college they will not have health insurance. Medicare does not cover experts on how to create longevity in fertility. If women continue to wait to have children after college or even after they get their career going, they naturally have a lower chance of conceiving a child. Combine that situation with women who have diseases like endometriosis. If they get pregnant young, but do not go to college they will not have a good income much less health insurance unless they get married. If there is a lot of pain involved and they cannot work or go to college… well, you do the math. You’ve got a lot of non-educated, not working, pregnant women and you also have a lot of educated successful women, but who have no ability to have children. Instead of going towards a future where we have more freedom to do as we choose we are losing a battle to something we cannot control before we even get started. Again why is contraception our biggest problem here? I think this is a distraction; literally something they pulled out of a sack of things to do to harm the Republican Party. The real issue is and has everything to do with wanting to keep conservatives away from the issue of abortion. If they can get conservative Republicans to tuck tail and run just on the issue of conception there’s no way Santorum or anyone else will bring up abortion. I believe someone pulled that because they are scared we are close to figuring something out.

What I’m about to say is not because I think insurance companies will begin to care or will change their “minds” because of what I’m saying. The following has a point in reference to how you get insurance companies to “care” about their business enough to change their policy.

Historically I believe the only effective mediums that ever really change people’s cultural perspective is martyrdom, the media or big business. The first one, martyr- well, those are a little hard to come by these days (in America anyway) and let’s just say they don’t come “on demand”. The second isn’t really a creative medium and shouldn’t be used for political problem solving. Well it shouldn’t be anyway if we’re talking about real news media, real journalists being the source and most specifically when the subject is the insanely delicate issue of abortion. So news/entertainment media, that’s out for convincing us of the truth. That leaves big business. How interesting. What in the world kind of big business could ever change the face of the “thing that appears in a woman after she has sex sometimes” A.K.A. a fetus? If you said insurance companies then yes, you guessed it.

Insurance companies are businesses and they do not speak the language of care. Apparently extreme leftists and feminists or both have been able to communicate with them quite well, but conservatives although a little slow on the uptake, can play that game too. Hey, insurance companies are not politically biased. Good health to them equals good money. If they have good enough reasons to start giving some sort of legal descriptions of the fetus and how the fetus affects a woman’s health, good or bad this would indicate a fetus is not just a benign object. This may mean the fetus would no longer be considered something that can just be operated on or elected to be removed as other benign parts of a woman’s body are. Insurance companies believe it or not, may be the key to saving millions of unwanted babies from elective abortion.

Many women are harmed physically and mentally by abortions, but do not talk about it, much less report it to anyone. There are some very deep seeded reasons why women are so private and protected when it comes to the functions of their bodies. Who can blame us when our whole menstruating lives we’ve been told by our fathers, boyfriends and husbands “I don’t want to know!” It’s definitely complicated and probably never going to change. From the dye in our hair to the corns on our feet, it’s all personal. I hate to equate it with this scenario but it’s kind of like a woman seeking to have plastic surgery and she goes to this guy that a friend of a friend who says can give her a “deal”. You know what happens next. Surprise! You’ve got malboobification and no, there’s no deal on a redo. How likely is she to do anything about it? Sure she may scream at the doctor, but go to the public to warn other women? Not likely.

Unfortunately by the same token women who want to keep their abortion private go to great links to keep it private. Businesses that rely on patients who want abortions for non-medical reasons especially, can count on this silence to run their practice as they please. Is this why Roe v. Wade became the law. We needed abortion to be legal so women could be safer. Wasn’t it so women didn’t have to worry about going to some shady place, devoid of information and any semblance of real medical care/after care? You’re lucky if they remind you to bring a pillow to sit your raw biscuit on afterwards.

Doctors take a Hippocratic Oath to never use their knowledge to harm anyone. The only way abortion is considered ethical and therefore legal is because by current legal statements the fetus remains a “benign” part of a woman’s body. In other words, the fetus is regarded as a part of a woman’s body that is neither harmful nor beneficial to her health wise, so therefore it is medically ethical to remove a fetus if a woman so chooses. If that perspective were to ever change, however… For example if a non-medical, non-political, non-religious entity were to establish a different perspective that a fetus was not benign, the opposition to abortion may not be seen as a religious/moral issue any longer, but a medically ethical issue as well as a financial issue. Let me explain.

If liberal Democrats want abortion to continue to be referred to as a real medical procedure that benefits women then they need to find a way to make it as such; giving a woman any and all information they can possibly comprehend in order for them to make a choice they can live with.

Ironically “Pro-Choice” Dems don’t want this either for several reasons. If you start giving information about abortion a lot of people will stop having abortions. If you show women a sonogram of the fetus a lot more women will elect not to have abortions. But most importantly, and the bottom line will always be this: if ever there is a legal precedent set saying that there are ever different health/based scenarios where an abortion should be legal v. illegal, liberal feminists would lose the argument that a fetus has nothing to do with a woman’s health.

If insurance companies start paying attention to fertility they may have to disclose the harmful effects of having an abortion procedure in reference to future pregnancies and also the common mental side effects attributed to undergoing an abortion. They may also inadvertently establish a precedent that having a fetus inside means more to a woman’s health than previously thought and therefore an insurance company’s bottom line.

There probably will never be a way to change the law to say abortion should only be in cases of medical emergency much less abolishing abortion all together. This may be disappointing to those who do solely base their beliefs against abortion on their religious beliefs, but I say let your heart not be troubled. There is still a way to have some satisfactory success in the real war against women.

So, scientifically speaking…the insurance company asks…does pregnancy actually benefit a woman’s health? So I did a little research. The answer is yes and no, but this is a good thing and I’ll tell you why. (I should have a white board for this.) Okay. Turns out if you have one baby or more than two babies the answer is no, actually. Three or more kids are not beneficial to a woman’s health? Imagine that. Not sure why having one is not so good for your health; other than I can guess there were maybe health and/or financial stresses that were there in the first place. Having three or more children seems to be harder on the body and mind for obvious reasons (with the exception of the breasts being more immune to breast cancer).

Two however, seem to be the magic number. Aside from instinctive good comforting feeling we get from having the chance to pass on our legacy onto offspring, they say two children also add more joy and stress relief to a family than not. More specific to a woman’s physical wellbeing, if a she breastfeeds during her pregnancy those two times, it reduces her chances of breast cancer.

Insurance companies therefore, should consider a policy more friendly to fertility than not. Mr. Rove, you could architect a plan for the Republican Party to help. In my opinion a good policy for them would be to simply offer to cover fertility drugs for women with less than two children. This would cover young women who had endometriosis and those women who medically could not get pregnant up to two children without medical help. It would cover women who were truly interested in fertility drugs because they had health problems not because they wanted to have a million babies at once. In essence once you have two babies you are no longer covered for fertility drugs. This would motivate people on two levels, (financially and health wise) to keep their families smaller. More healthy and smaller families? This should make insurance companies drool… in a good way.

This in my opinion is something the Republicans could really use to get their spirit back. A spirit that has been lost I believe, due to the constant rebuke from those who equate people of religious backgrounds as those who argue outside of reality. Conservatives are tired of being beaten in arguments before they even argue simply because of what liberals say is the basis of all conservative beliefs. Religion is not the basis for all conservative beliefs but for some reason red letter subjects like abortion especially, cannot be discussed at all if those on the right are in the discussion. And those on the right don’t speak at all about these subjects because they are afraid people will think all they want to do is have the country conform to their religious beliefs. This is the damage of pseudos!!!

So let’s not try to fight liberals with emotional pleas. Trust me. They’ve got the bleeding hearts of America emotional arguments and drama in the bag. If we continue to go that route we will surely lose. Speak the language of the insurance company’s and you will find a way to make as much “change” with them as the Dem’s apparently are able to make. You can use the young women’s disappointment in the insurance companies and government just as leftists have. But you will win with the argument that you really understand what young women are going through regardless of their religion or personal lifestyle. Women deserve more than to be told they need contraceptives to live healthy lives and you realize that they need security for their future. Whether that means contraceptives today or a family tomorrow, they need to know or maybe they do know that there may be nothing left for them as far as Medicare and social security by the time they need it. This may be why they are going towards a more “entitlement” society as they try to get all the free shit they can while they can. which is why they may vote for someone like Obama. Then point out though, that voting for Obama probably won’t really lead to any free entitlements and that it will actually only make everything (free shit included) harder and harder to get if not disappear altogether. In fact, voting for someone who insists on encouraging an entitlement society will only cause the quality of women’s healthcare to get worse.